(PC) Johnson v. Dovey et al

Filing 168

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Objection 161 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/13/12. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

9
10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00640-LJO-DLB PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
OBJECTION (DOCS. 161, 163)

v.
A. DUNNAHOE, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

16

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

17

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

18

against Defendants Dunnahoe, V. Ybarra, Cunningham, Medrano, Holguin, Valasquez, G.

19

Ybarra, Curliss, J. Gonzales, and K. Powell on claims of excessive force, inhumane conditions of

20

confinement, retaliation, and state law claims.

21

On March 14, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motions for

22

appointment of counsel. Doc. 159. On March 15, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge

23

denied Plaintiff’s motion requesting that documents currently subject to a protective order be

24

provided to Plaintiff for his immediate possession. Doc. 160. On March 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed

25

a motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying appointment of counsel.

26

Doc. 161. On March 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed objections, seeking reconsideration of the

27

Magistrate Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for possession of documents subject to a

28

protective order. Doc. 163. CDCR, a non-party to this action and responsible for the protective
1

1

order, filed a response on March 30, 2012. Doc. 165. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local

2

Rule 230(l).

3

A.

4

Reconsideration Of Magistrate Judge’s Order
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when reviewing a magistrate judge’s

5

order, “[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside

6

any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” See also 28 U.S.C. §

7

636(b)(1)(A); L. R. 303. The assigned district judge may also reconsider any matter sua sponte.

8

L.R. 303(g).

9

Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court may overturn a magistrate

10

judge’s ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a

11

mistake has been made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d

12

980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943

13

(7th Cir. 1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may conduct independent

14

review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id.

15

B.

16

Appointment Of Counsel
Plaintiff contends that he cannot adequately articulate his claims because CDCR failed to

17

comply with an order compelling discovery. Pl.’s Mot. 1, Doc. 161. A review of the Court

18

docket indicates that Plaintiff has demonstrated adequate ability to litigate this action, having

19

filed several motions regarding his discovery issues. Thus, Plaintiff’s argument is unpersuasive.

20

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge’s order was contrary to law or clearly

21

erroneous. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration,

22

filed March 22, 2012, is denied.

23

C.

24

Documents Subject To Protective Order
Plaintiff contends that he needs immediate possession of the documents subject to the

25

protective order. Pl.’s Objection 1, Doc. 163. Plaintiff contends that without possession of such

26

documents, he will be unable to prepare for trial in this matter and will be substantially

27

prejudiced. Id. However, it appears that Plaintiff may still review the documents in this matter.

28

Plaintiff is not prohibited from access to these documents for purposes of litigation. Plaintiff’s
2

1

argument is unpersuasive. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge’s order

2

was contrary to law or clearly erroneous. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

3

objection, filed March 28, 2012, is denied.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:
b9ed48

April 13, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3